Quand la domination du leader contribue au déclin. Analyse de l’écosystème d’affaires Symbian et rôle de Nokia

Fautrero, Valérie; Gueguen, Gaël

doi:10.3166/rfg.222.107-121

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To optimize its influence, the keystone firm repositions its activity on its core business and develops more and more formal relationships and institutionalized interactions in order to safeguard its own growth. These strategies will have negative consequences for the growth of the whole platform ecosystem, thereby increasing its vulnerability (see Table 1) [52].…”

Section: Conservation Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

Toward an Evolutionary and Sustainability Perspective of the Innovation Ecosystem: Revisiting the Panarchy Model

Boyer

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper proposes an evolutionary and sustainability perspective of the innovation ecosystem. This study revisits the Panarchy model in order to generate new perspectives on the innovation ecosystem. The Panarchy model describes the evolutionary nature of complex adaptive systems relying on four phases, without, however, being deterministic: exploitation, conservation, decline, and reorganization. When ecosystems face important shocks, adaptive mechanisms and properties within the ecosystem lead the ecosystem to a new reorganization phase, which gives birth to another exploitation phase. In this perspective, the innovation ecosystem allows the avoidance of technology lock-ins and structural and organizational rigidity by providing mechanisms to enhance both resilience and competitiveness. Innovation ecosystem sustainability relies on two major dual forces: the exploitative function and the generative or autopoiesis function. Therefore, evolutionary and sustainability perspectives remain the "natural home" for developing works and models about the innovation ecosystem, and instrumental for policy-makers and practitioners involved in innovation management. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3232 2 of 17The approach that developing innovation processes and competitive advantage relies on a business-friendly environment with complex relationships between actors is not new. The Marshallian hypothesis on "industrial districts" have already described the importance of geographic and relational proximity characterized by complementarities and interdependences between a diversity of economic actors regarding the competitiveness of a given territory [11]. Becattini, in the 1980s, expanded the concept of Industrial districts to characterize Italian districts' competitiveness [12]. Porter delved deeper into this concept and popularized, in the 1990s, the cluster concept, which is defined as a concentration of small, medium, or large firms, organizations, and institutions, which are in synergy in a particular technological field within a geographic area [13]. At the same time, evolutionary economists have developed the concept of the "innovation system" as incorporating the role of institutions in the structuring (at different scales: sector, territorial, or topological) of this strategic and interactionist environment favoring the development of innovation processes [14][15][16][17].Given such an abundant theoretical corpus, many are critical of and skeptical about the potential contribution of the innovation ecosystem concept. According to Oh et al., the added value this concept generates is so low that its mobilization exposes the researcher much more to questionable scientific rigor and invalid knowledge production. Its use can even lead to harmful and dangerous political and strategic choices [18]. Faced with these criticisms, the ecosystem concept has become a more and more contested concept, calling for more robust conceptual and theoretical foundations. In addition, these criticisms highlight the need for concrete operational...

show abstract

Section: Conservation Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

Toward an Evolutionary and Sustainability Perspective of the Innovation Ecosystem: Revisiting the Panarchy Model

Boyer

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…La capacité des autres acteurs impliqués à faire évoluer les règles de coordination associées à la plate-forme est variable et déterminée par la stratégie (de keystone ou de domination) de la firme leader (Iansiti et Levien, 2004 ;Fautrero et Gueguen, 2012). En tout état de cause, les règles d'action collective ne pourront évoluer que de manière incrémentale, car toute modification importante supposerait une remise en cause de l'architecture de la plate-forme commune (voir Aggeri et Segrestin, 2002).…”

Section: L'innovation Ouverte Dans La Politique Des Pôles De Compétitunclassified

Innovation ouverte et évolution des business models dans les pôles de compétitivité : le rôle des intermédiaires dans la création variétale végétale

Leroux¹,

Paul²,

Plottu³

et al. 2014

rei

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These words were used in 2011 by Stephen Elop, former CEO of Nokia, to explain the difficulties encountered by the leader of the mobile industry faced with the rise of Apple and Google. A few years later, the verdict is clear: the advent of the smartphone -resulting from the convergence of mobile and digital technologies -and the inability of Nokia to quickly emancipate itself from its strategy of industrial domination precipitated the fall of the leader (Fautrero & Gueguen, 2012;West & Wood, 2013). This fall is emblematic of the discontinuities caused by digital convergence and the dramatic consequences of the inability of incumbent firms to adapt their strategy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Breaking the Mirror’ to Face Digital Convergence: The Role of Selective Mirroring in the Trade-Off between Value Creation and Capture Mechanisms

Azoulay

2023

mgmt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research questions the mirroring hypothesis in the context of digital convergence. The mirroring hypothesis suggests that the organization of innovation activities tends to mirror the technical architecture of products. When the architecture is modular, such mirroring optimizes the management of innovation activities. But it can also limit the ability of incumbent firms to adapt to technological discontinuities. Digital convergence is a source of discontinuities that transform the conditions of value creation and capture within industries. It leads to new complementarities that push incumbents to collaborate with firms coming from other industries within emerging ecosystems. How does the mirroring between product architecture and organization evolve in the face of the new challenges of value creation and capture brought by digital convergence? This question is addressed through a qualitative case study of the organization of innovation activities between Renault and its partners in the field of embedded automotive electronics. The results show that the automaker ‘breaks the mirror’ through a strategy of selective mirroring that allows it to collaborate with new complementors and to reconfigure its mechanisms of value creation and capture.

show abstract

Quand la domination du leader contribue au déclin. Analyse de l’écosystème d’affaires Symbian et rôle de Nokia

Abstract: Quand la domination du leader contribue au déclin : analyse de l'écosystème d'affaires Symbian et rôle de Nokia.

Cited by 6 publications

References 11 publications

Toward an Evolutionary and Sustainability Perspective of the Innovation Ecosystem: Revisiting the Panarchy Model

Toward an Evolutionary and Sustainability Perspective of the Innovation Ecosystem: Revisiting the Panarchy Model

Innovation ouverte et évolution des business models dans les pôles de compétitivité : le rôle des intermédiaires dans la création variétale végétale

‘Breaking the Mirror’ to Face Digital Convergence: The Role of Selective Mirroring in the Trade-Off between Value Creation and Capture Mechanisms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About